Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - For the experimental, 1.25% were green when inconsistent
      - 8.42% when consistent
      - Only 0.25% of the control group responses were green
    - - Moscovici's experiment suggests that minorities can influence majority
      - It indicates that this influence is more effective when consistent
      - Later research largely confirmed these findings
  - - - Important that these activities are at some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause
      - Increases the amount of interest - augmentation principle
      - Minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to the cause
    - - Consistency makes others rethink their own views
      - Synchrony - people in minority all saying the same thing
      - Over time, consistency in the minority increases hte amount of interest
      - Diachronic - minority saying the same thing for a long time
    - - Researchers have questioned whether being consistent alone is enough
      - Nemeth (1986) argued if the minority is inflexible and uncompromising the majority is unlikely to change
        
        Had to decide on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim
        
        When the confed wouldn't change from a low amount, the majority stuck together at the higher
        
        When the confed changed his compensation offer a bit, so did the majority
        
        Constructed a mock jury with 3 genuine ppts and 1 confed
  - - - Another group heard a majority endorsing the initial view
      - Ppts were then exposed to a conflicting view and their support was measured again
      - One group of ppts heard a minority endorsing the same view
      - Martin et al (2003) gave ppts a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support
      - People were less willing to change to the new view if they had listened to the minority
      - Suggests that the minority message was more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect
    - - Findings lacks external validity and have limited real world applications
      - Most studies don't capture the commitment of the minorities including the social support that members give each other when the majority hostility overwhelms them
      - Real life situations are more complicated
      - The tasks are artificial
    - - When the minority were inconsistent, they were generally ignored
      - Moscovici demonstrated that when minority are consitent, they can influence the majority
      - Later research has confirmed these findings
    - - Moscovici found higher agreement with minority when ppts wrote their answers down
      - Shows internalisation took place
      - People may be reluctant to admit their conversion publicly
- - - - Consistency of position
        
        Displaying an unswerving message and intent
      - Deeper processing
        
        Many people who accept the status quo start thinking further
      - The augmentation principle
        
        Minorities take risks to further the cause
      - Snowball effect
        
        People switch from a majority position to a minority one
      - Drawing attention to the issues
        
        Highlighting a concern
      - Social cryptomnesia occurs
        
        People know change has occurred but some have no memory of the events leading to the change
  - - - This enabled others to dissent
      - Asch's research demonstrated that when one confederate always gave the correct answer, this broke the power of majority
    - - They provide information about what others are doing
      - Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to the majority's behaviour
      - Environmental and health campaigners explot conformity by NSI
  - - - In his variation, when one confed refused to give shocks, the rate of obedience dropped significantly
      - Milgram's research demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models
    - - Zimbardo (2007) suggested how obedience can be used to create social change - once a small commitment has been made, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one
      - People drift into a new kind of behaviour
  - - - The majority may avoid aligning with the minority as they don't want to be seen this way
      - The minority message would have very little impact as the focus would be on the source of the message not the message itself
      - Potential for minorities to influence social change is often limited as they are seen deviant by the majority
      - Minorities have to avoid being potrayed as deviants and also make people embrace their position
    - - Minorities can't be influenial unless they attract the majority attention
      - If they are seen as too off-putting, the majority won't consider the message
      - Being able to identify with a minority is as important as agreeing with their views
      - This is why it's important minorities behave in ways that put their case in the majority's focus
    - - Suggestst that MI has limited effect in short time and genuine social change from MI only occur after long periods of time
      - MI is frequently more latent than direct as it causes potential for social change not actual change
      - Nemeth (1986) suggests that the effects of minority influence may only be indirect and delayed
        
        Effects of MI are delayed as the effects may not be seen in society for some time
        
        Indirect as the majority is only influenced on matters related to the issue not the actual issue
    - - Trivial tasks used in some studies don't reflect real-life situations
      - Practical steps based on research have proven effective in bringing change, suggeting the link is partially valid
      - Explanations are limited due to methodological issues
    - - The message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage
      - As a control, some residents had a diff. message that asked them to save energy
      - Hung messages on front doors in San Diego every week for 1 month
      - Findings showed a sig. decrease in energy use in the group informed 'most residents'
      - Nolan (2008) investigated whether majority influence led to a reduction in energy consumption
- - - - AO1
        
        This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy
        
        Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest 3 main factors to explain obedience
        
        Legitimacy of the system
        
        Concerns the extent to which the body is a legitimate source of authority
        
        Legitimacy of authority within the system
        
        This is the power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in the system
        
        This is linked to status and hierarchy within a particular establishment
        
        Legitimacy of demands given
        
        Refers to the extent with which the order is perceived to be a legitimate area for the authority figure
        
        We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
      - AO3
        
        Cultural Differences
        
        In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience
        
        Reflects the ways that diff. societies are structured and are raised to perceive authority figures
        
        Legitimacy theory is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
    - - AO1
        
        People have 2 ways of acting
        
        Agentic state - individuals allow someone else to direct their behaviour
        
        Autonomous state - individuals direct their own behaviour and taken responsibility for the consequences
        
        People move from the autonomous state to the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure (agentic shift)
        
        When we act as an agent of authority, we find it easy to deny responsibility as we are just following orders
        
        If we obey an order that goes against our morality, we experience moral strain
        
        Milgram proposed the agentic theory
        
        Althought people may want to stop, they feel unable to due to binding factors (aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour)
      - AO3
        
        Research Support
        
        Blass and Schmitt (2001) found that people who saw Milgram's study blamed the experimenter, indicating they believed the ppts were agents of authority
        
        The explanation is also supported by historical events
        
        Milgram's research demonstrated how the majority of people follow instructions even when acting against their own conscience
        
        Limited Explanation
        
        It could be due to personality rather than the situation
        
        Agency theory cannot explain why some people disobey figures
        
        There are alternative reasons why people obey an authority figure
  - - - A high level of obedience is like a psychological disorder
      - Procedure
        
        Developed an F scale to measure the relationship between a person's personality type and prejudiced beliefs
        
        Ppts who scored highly had authoritarian personalities
        
        Study of more than 2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
      - Claimed a particular personality type is more likely to obey an authority
      - Findings
        
        Very conscious of their own and others' status
        
        High scorers had a particular cognitive style
        
        No grey areas between categories of people
        
        Had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
        
        Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
        
        Those that scored highly identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'
      - Was interested in invesigating why Nazi soldiers were so willing to persecute and kill members of minority groups
    - - Distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience
      - Characteristics and Associated Behaviour
        
        General hostility towards other groups
        
        Has a dominating and bullying manner
        
        Intolerant of ambiguity - anything that cannot be defined in clear cut way
        
        Cannot tolerate behaviour that is 'wrong' in anyway
        
        Rigid beliefs in conventional values
        
        Very traditional ideas - dislike of change or disorder
        
        Submissive attitudes towards authority figures
        
        Respectful to authority figures
      - Provided a possible explanation for why some people require little pressure to obey
      - Development of the Authoritarian Personality
        
        Unconscious hostility
        
        Consciously have very high opinions of their parents but unconsciously feel very aggressive towards them
        
        Displacement
        
        Hostility displaced onto safer targets
        
        Very disciplined upbringing
        
        Parents are harsh and show little affection & issues severe punishments
        
        Prejudice
        
        Results in prejudice views and discriminatory behaviour
    - - Social Identity Theory
        
        Favour our own group over any group we don't belong to
        
        Maximise the similarities within the group & differences between our group and others
        
        People identify themselves with particular social groups
      - Political Bias
        
        In reality, left wing also emphasises the importance of complete obedience
        
        The theory is limited as it can't accont for obedience across the whole political spectrum
        
        The 'F' scale measures the tendency towards an extreme right wing ideology
      - Limited Explanation
        
        Hard to explain obedience in majority of a population
      - Methodological Problems
        
        Knowing the ppts test scores meant they knew whether the interviewee was likely to have the personality type
        
        Their questioning would have been guided by this
        
        Interviews were vulnerable to interviewer bias as the interviewers knew the hypothesis of the study
        
        May have recorded only the information they needed to confirm their hypothesis
      - Research Support
        
        Found that those who went to 450V scored higher on authoritarianism tests & lower on scales of social responsibility
        
        Support Adorno's claims although only a correlation
        
        Milgram & Alan Elms (1966) conducted a follow-up study
        
        Large body of evidence to indicate people who are very rigid and conservative have been brought up in the way Adorno described
  - - - People in positions of authority often have outfits that symbolise authority
      - Indicates who is entitled to expect our obedience
        
        Lab coat - 65%
        
        Ordinary member of the public - 20%
    - - Refers to the place where an order is issued
      - Relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location
        
        University setting - 65%
        
        Run-down office downtown - 47.5%
    - - Milgram changed the variables in a variety of ways in order to study proximity effects
      - One required the teacher to force the learner's hand onto the plate when he refused to answer
        
        Touch proximity - 30%
      - Also refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the learner
        
        In the same room - 40%
        
        In adjoining rooms - 66%
      - In another condition, the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the phone
        
        Remote proximity - 20.5%
        
        Frequently pretended to give shocks or weaker shocks than ordered
      - Refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving the order to
    - - Cross-Cultural Replications
        
        Suggests Milgram's findings aren't limited to American males
        
        Suggests a robust phenomenon is being studied
        
        Both the original and variations have been replicated in other cultures, finding similar results
        
        Most replications are carried out in Western societies
      - Lack of Internal Validity
        
        Original study was criticised as ppts could've guessed that shocks weren't real and so the behaviour wasn't measured
        
        It's even more likely that ppts in the variations realised it wasn't a real study and displayed demand characteristics
      - Bushman (1988)
        
        In uniform, 72% obeyed, business exec 48%, beggar 52%
        
        When interviewed after, people claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority
        
        Carried out a study where a female researcher dressed as a police officer, a business executive or a beggar, stopped people and told them to give change to a male reseracher for an expired parking meter
      - Obedience alibi
        
        Suggesting that Nazis executing Jewish people was them only doing their duty implies they were also victims
        
        Runs the risk of trivialising genocide
        
        Some people consider a situational perspective on the Holocaust offensive because it removes personal responsibility
      - Bickman (1974)
        
        Researchers were dressed in 1/3 ways
        
        Milkman's uniform
        
        Guard's uniform
        
        Civilian clothing
        
        Researcher gave pedestrians 1/3 instructions
        
        That man is overparked, give him a dime
        
        Pick up this bag
        
        You have to stand on the other side of the pole
        
        3 male researchers gave direct requests to 153 random pedestrians in Brooklyn
        
        80% of ppts obeyed the guard, 40% obeyed the others
        
        Tested the ecological validity of Milgram's work
        
        Provide further evidence that obedience is influenced by the authority that a person seems to have
  - - - Method
        
        Told that the generator was connected to electrodes that were placed on the victim in the other room
        
        Ppts were seated in front of the generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner that had to memorise them
        
        Ppts were taken to a separate room after watching the learner be strapped to a chair
        
        If the learner was wrong, they would get shocked
        
        Voltage increases after each incorrect answer
        
        The learner gave a predetermined set of responses, 3 wrong 1 right
        
        Ppts were asked to draw a slip from a hat to pick their role but it was fixed
        
        If ppts asked for advice, the experimenter had a set of prods
        
        The experiment requires that you continue
        
        It's absolutely essential that you continue
        
        Please continue
        
        You have no other choice, you must go on
        
        Confederates were used to play the experimenter and victim
        
        A ppt who leaves before 450V was labelled defiant and those that stayed as obedient
        
        Milgram created a fake shock generator that went from 15-450V
        
        Had 30 marked switches to indicate each voltage, moving up by 15V
        
        Filmed and notes were taken
        
        Ppts were debriefed and met the confederate afterwards to show no harm done
      - Results
        
        12.5% stopped at 300V
        
        65% shocked the maximum 450V
        
        All 40 ppts obeyed up to 300V
        
        After debrief, 84% said they were glad to have taken part
      - Participants
        
        Volunteer sample - recruited through ads and mailing
        
        Told the study was about learning
        
        20-50 years old
        
        Paid $4.50
        
        40 male ppts
    - - Hofling (1966)
        
        Said he would sign the right papers when he arrived 10 minutes later
        
        21/22 nurses obeyed and started to prepare the dosage before they were stopped and debriefed
        
        Phoned by an unknown doctor (confederate) and told to give 20mg to a patient (daily dosage clearly 10mg)
        
        Explanations
        
        Nurses said doctors often phoned through instructions and became annoyed if nurses questioned them
        
        This doctor also said he would take responsibility
        
        Ppts were 22 staff nurses on night duty
        
        The experiment studies obedience in a real-life setting
        
        Set his experiment in a number of psychiatric hospitals in USA
      - Burger (2009)
        
        Found levels of obedience almost idential to Milgram
        
        Temporal validity
      - Good External Validity
        
        Reveals something important about the relationship between authority figure and participant
        
        Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflects wider authority relationships in real life
      - Social Identity Theory
        
        Maximise the similarities and differences
        
        Ppts were willing to continue giving shocks as they identified with the experimenter as a scientist
        
        Favour our own group over any other group
        
        As long as the prods related to the science, they were effective
        
        People identify themselves as belonging to particular social group
      - Low Internal Validity
        
        The study had been criticised for not actually testing obedience
        
        It has been suggested that the ppts guessed that the shocks weren't real and therefore, their behaviour wasn't being measured
      - Alternative Explanation
        
        They began to identify more with the learner
        
        The ppts continued because they identified with science not obedience
        
        As soon as a prod asserted authority, all ppts resisted
        
        Clearly undermines Milgram's conclusions because they contradict his claim that his findings were due to accepting the authority
      - Ethical Issues
        
        It's important to remember that Milgram didn't expect his experiment to have such dramatic effects
        
        Consulted psychiatrists before the experiment and concluded that most would shock to 150V and only 1% to 450V
        
        Considered unethical by other psychologists
        
        Milgram defended his work
- - - - Some ppts were convinced they were right but still conformed
      - Some recognised they saw things differently but thought they had eye strain or were seated at an awkward angle
      - A small majority stated they actually saw the lines that way
    - - Group size
        
        Found little change once group size reached 4/5
        
        3 is considered the optimal group size for conformity to occur
        
        Found that conformity increased as the group size increases
        
        3 or more, 32%
        
        With two others, 13%
        
        When one other confederate, conformity was 3%
      - Unanimity
        
        Introduced a confederate that disagreed, reducing conformity
        
        Enabled the real ppt to behave more independently
        
        He was interested in whether a non-conformer would affect conformity
      - Task difficulty
        
        When the lines were more similar, it was harder to judge the correct answer
        
        When we're uncertain, we look to others for confirmation
        
        Made the line judgement task more difficult
        
        Conformity increased
    - - On average, 32% of ppts in each trial conformed to the wrong majority
      - 75% conformed at least once
      - Measured the number of times each ppt conformed
    - - Articial
        
        Ppts knew they were taking part in research so may display demand characteristics
        
        The task is unlike what we take part in everyday
      - Limited application
        
        Carried out the research in the US, and individualistic culture
        
        Lowest rate of conformity (14%) found in Belgian students and highest (58%) found in Indian teachers in Fiji
        
        Only men were tested so the results aren't generalisable to women
        
        Demonstrates that conformity rates aren't universal and culture has an effect which Asch didn't consider
      - Lacks Temporal Validity
        
        Perrin & Spencer (1981) carried out the study 25 yrs later with engineering students and only one student conformed in 396 trials
    - - Confederates agreed in advance what their responses would be
        
        The ppt didn't know this and was led to believe the other 7 were real ppts
      - Each person in the room had to state aloud which line was most like the target line
        
        The real ppt sat at the end of the row and gave his answer last
        
        In some trials, the 7 confederates gave the wrong answer
        
        The answer was always obvious
      - Using the line judgement task, Asch put a naive ppt in the room with 7 confederates
      - There were 18 trials in total & confederates gave the wrong answer 12 times
  - - - Push ups were a common form of physical punishment
      - Beginning of day 2
        
        Prisoners
        
        Removed their stocking caps
        
        Ripped off their numbers
        
        Barricaded themselves inside the cell
        
        Guards
        
        Got a fire extinguisher and shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide
        
        Forced the prisoners away from the doors
        
        Broke into each cell
        
        Stripped the prisoners naked
        
        Took the beds out
        
        Forced the ringleaders of the rebellion into solitary confinement
        
        Began to harass and intimidate the prisoners
      - Less than 36hrs into the experiment, a prisoner began to suffer from acute emotional disturbance, disorganised thinking and uncontrollable crying
    - - This means that they seemed unable to focus on who they were and fell into the role of being prisoner/guard
      - This was manipulated by humiliation of arrest and strip down and the punishments from the guards
      - He felt that deindividuation happened due to complete loss of individuation
      - The labelling of prisoners also helped this process as they had no personal responsibility
    - - Prisoners
        
        Deloused, stripped and searched
        
        Smock and prison ID number
        
        Taken to a holding cell, kept blindfolded
        
        Heavy chain bolted on ankle
        
        Arrested at home and blindfolded
        
        Rubber sandals and stocking cap
      - Guards
        
        Instructed to do whatever necessary to maintain law and order and command respect
        
        Identical uniforms, whistles, billy club, special sunglasses
      - Zimbardo wanted to create a prison situation in the basement of Stanford University to observe the effects of ppts acting as guards and those acting as prisoners
        
        From the volunteers, those deemed emotionally stable were selected and randomly assigned guard or prisoner
        
        24 college students (white, middle class, males, healthy)
        
        An advert was put in a newspaper asking for male students with pay per day for 2 weeks
    - - Internal validity
        
        Zimbardo had some control over the ppt variables as he had only selected emotionally stable ppts
      - Demand characteristics
        
        Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued that the ppts were just play-acting rather than genuinely conforming
      - Real world application
        
        The guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (2003) were similarly affected which led them to behave in ways they would normally reject
        
        The real guards were very creative in their 'evil' behaviour, just like in the study
      - Role of dispositional influences
        
        Zimbardo has been accused of over-exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour as only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal manner
      - Revealed the power of the situation
        
        Zimbardo's work has had important implications for the way we view cases of blind obedience
        
        Has made very important contributions to our understanding of social influence
      - Ethical issues
        
        The volunteers knew they were in a study but didn't know when it would take place so the shock of being randomly arrested and taken to the mock prison put them in a state of shock
        
        Zimbardo was conforming to the social role of prison superintendent, he wasn't able to fulfil his ethical duty
        
        It was considered ethical as he followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee that had approved with a government grant
        
        Instead, they were exposed to the risk of psychological harm
        
        The study had to end early because of this
  - - - Normative Social Influence
        
        Following the crowd in order to fit in with the norm and be liked
        
        AO3
        
        Schultz et al (2008)
        
        Found that hotel guests exposed to normative messages that 75% guests reuse their towels reduced their own towel use by 25% suggesting people shape their behaviour to fit in
        
        Differences
        
        Research shows that NSI doesn't affect everyone the same way
        
        E.g. people less concerned about being liked are less affected by NSI
        
        McGhee and Teevan
        
        Students high in need of affiliation more likely to conform
        
        Showing the desire to be liked leads to conformity
        
        Occurs when we wish to be liked by the majority, so we go along with them even though we may not agree
      - Informative Social Influence
        
        A person will conform as they genuinely believe the majority to be correct
        
        AO3
        
        Lucas et al
        
        Found that students conformed to an incorrect answer when they found the task difficult in maths
        
        Showing people conform when they feel unsure
        
        Individual Differences
        
        Perrin and Spencer found very little conformity and less likely to seek information from others
        
        Wittenbrink and Henley (1996)
        
        Found that ppts exposed to negative info about African Americans (framed as majority view) later reported more negative beliefs
        
        Occurs when we look to the majority for information as we are unsure what to believe
      - Developed a two-process theory that proposes there are 2 main reasons people conform, based on 2 central human needs
    - - Identification
        
        Moderate form where we act the same as the group because we share their values and want to be accepted
        
        The change of belief/behaviour is temporary
      - Internalisation
        
        A deep type where a person conforms publicly and privately because they have internalised & accepted the views
        
        Deepest form
      - Compliance
        
        Shallowest form
        
        Conforming publicly but continuing to privately disagree
- - - - They act as models to show others that resistance is possible
      - Conformity
        
        Reduced by a dissenting peer and the effect isn't long-lasting
        
        Asch
        
        Conformity reduced to 5.5% when one confederate gave a diff. answer
        
        True even when the confederates answer was also wrong
        
        Social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority
      - The presence of people who resist can help others to do so
      - Obedience
        
        Reduced by one other dissenting partner
        
        The dissenter's disobedience frees the ppt to act on their own conscience
        
        Milgram
        
        Obedience dropped to 10% when genuine ppts were joined by a disobedient confederate
        
        Independent behaviour increased to 90%
        
        People are more confident to resist if they can find an ally
    - - Research Support - Conformity
        
        Even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and had vision problems
        
        Allen & Levin (1971) found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch type study
        
        Resistance isn't motivated by following someone else but frees the pressure from the group
      - Research Support - Obedience
        
        Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram
        
        They were in groups
        
        Had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign
        
        29/33 groups rebelled (88%)
        
        Peer support is linked to greater resistance
  - - - Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens
      - Externals believe that things happen without their control
      - Rotter (1966) proposed a concept concerned with internal vs external LOC
      - People with internal LOC are more likely to resist
        
        If someone takes personal responsibility, they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
        
        People with high internal are more self-confident, achievement-oriented, intelligent and need less social approval
      - The sense we have about what directs events in our lives
    - - Contradictory Evidence
        
        If resistance was linked to internal, we would expect people to become more internal
        
        People have become more resistant but more external
        
        May be due to changing society where many things are outside personal control
        
        Twenge et al (2004) meta-analysis from American obedience studies over 40yrs
      - Role of LOC may be Exaggerated
        
        Suggests that LOC can explain only a limited range of situations
        
        LOC is not as important as suggested
        
        Rotter et al (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations
      - Research Support - Obedience
        
        Only 23% of externals didn't go to 450V
        
        37% of internals showed independence
        
        Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's study and measured LOC
        
        Increases the validity of the LOC explanation in resistance